Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-10-08

noy GcnCTal requested that all further
proceedings bedeftrci until this morn
ipp, as he would probably desire to file
some additional plcadings before the
decree was entered.
Mr.. Royals side assentcd to this
proposition and il was so ordered.
30 the cases went over
From Judge Bond the Attorney
General viii no doubt seek n WAY to
appeal TO the United States Supreme
Court.
ASSOCIATE COUNSEL.
Colonel W. W. Gordon, who is asso-
ciatcd with the Attorney General in
these cases, was not present yesterday.
He was in Memphis on other important
business. He was here on the 9th (the
day first appointed for Judge Bonds
dccisiou), but subsequently left the city
for Tennessee.
CONTEMPT CASES.
In yiow of yesterdays decision the
parties in contempt and the Court are
now getting 10 close quarters.
The first man in all Virginia to dis
obey the Judges injunctions in these
cases was Attorncy-Gcncral Ayers. So
far that fact has been overlooked by
Judge Bond.
The parties ruled to answer for fail
ure to respect Judge Bonds restraining
orders are Mr. McCabe, OF Loudouu !;
Mr. John Scott. of Fauquier anl Mr..
Glcaycs, of Wythe-all attorneys for
the Commonwealth.
The order was not served upon Mr..
McCabc at all, though it may have
been served upon his predecessor. The
order was not served upon Mr.. Gleavcs
by such am officer as the Revised Sta
tutcs require. II U0s probably v served
upon Mr.. scott in conformity with the
law, but hc disrc@ardcd il for reasons
given In his answer, which was recent
~ published in this paper.
JAIL DOORS.
apparently the iail doors are opening
TO receive Mr. Scott
lie is not the man to recole from q
position taken after due dehberation.
and Judge Bond has some reputation
for determination.
So. as things now stand, it would ap-
pear t. he likely that Judge Bond
viii order Mr.. Scott TO Jail. If So
advanced in years as lac is--he viii %
cheorfully and patiently remain until
the Attmuoy-Gcnoral can bring his case
before the United States Supreme
Court.
But whether this sort Of action will
be taken. now that the State is in the
heat of political canvass, or will be
GcfGTcd until November. is a ques-
ton.
It may be, indeed, that Mr.. Scott
viii he severely let alone and the Court
look in another direction for an exam
PIE to yindicate his authority.
opinion OF tne Court.
The following Is the opinion Of Judge
Pond in full
ne TJ0inia Steamboat Company -. Hor'on
Aart, n ai, James j. Cooper ~ c's. -. Uor-
fln NarVe e. Ul5. Nu,s re-. JtUc, 3. HcCtbe
~ ciN; Same ts. s. u. With tie Circuit
court - he lhu.t states for ho Eastern DIS
tr,cf AZ Iyfinir.
The bills of complaint fled In these cases
hive @ common purpose, ami that is. % ro-
strain the defendants. who are officers Of the
state. from putting In force certain acts OF it,
legislature recently passed lu reference 10
taN.pay ycrs who have rendered or shall here
nffer tcudor. the coupons OF the bonds OF tho
State iu payment OF taxes.
Tpou ne presentation Of the bills Of COM
plant aIoetrainluE order was issued ana ms
hearing f. % determine whether or nor an IN
junction should issue pcrpctually nlplulng Tho
dsfeuaant- from proceeding to enforce tho
laws in question a. prayed "a the bils oI COM
riaiuf Tho cases have been argued together
as # upon demurrer mere Is no dispute
scout the facts. but tho niofences drawn lIOm
hi, .,t1 hy tho complaiuants are denied.
The blll of the steamboat company, corpp-
ration chartered by the state, alleges that II
Wa- irdt bted 20 the state In December, loSf, In
= sum exceeding two thousand dollars for
taxes assessed against it: that IN December,
1856. the complainant rendered 70 Morton
NaryC. WHO then, as nov, was the AUDITOR ul
the State. genuine coupons cut from the bonds
Of the Stato. AMI 10y law made receivable tor
taxes 10 the amount Of it- i1iebtedncss, which
coupons the defendant Marye refused % re-
ceigc because the net of the General Assembly
of Virginia. approved January 2jth, lSo3, fer
tndc him 80 20 DO. The hill further alleges
that ry an act Of tho General Assembly OF Viz
giuia, approved May IL, 1877, TIE AUDITOR IN
rOufuncu with either =. b. Witt, attorney for
tie Commonwealth ~ Richmond city, or r. a.
Aver, Aitorucy-Gcncral of the state, Is re-
guirel 10 bring suit against The complainant in
The Circuit Court of the City of Richmond Tor
said taxc-, which suit they threaten % bring,
Notwithstanding TIC tuulff AlNhc NtltiNubilf
ina which suit the complainant 10y the said act
rs required to plead the tonder In writing, ard
am issue BE- to De made up TO try whether tho
coupons su rendered are genuine or not.
And the bill further shows that upon the trlat
Il mo issue 30 required 10 he made up the
state Of Virginia by another act approved Jau-
uary 2f, lsS6. requires tho defendant ia the a.
uou Che complainant here who has teadereI
coupons 10 payment ot taXes) 10 produce 'ho
original bond from which the rendered coupons
were cut. in order 10 establish their genutne
character, aLd that 10y another act approfeu
January 81, 1896, no expert testimony - oiloNou
10 be used al the trial Of the issue, although the
coupons aud the signatures thereto are hoi
written but engraved, and heavy costs an1
penalties are provided Tor thesS ueivha6utS
who DO not under these provisions Vi law
make good their case. Copies OF these statutes
are filed with the bills aud are prayed 70 DO
made part thereof 20 far as tho case OF the
steamboat company re Mayre t coucerh'u' II
presents two principal questions Tor cor slueia-
lion. The amount Involved IN ue suit IN 4 IN
frovcrsy is ample 90 maintain the Juri.dlcuon
~ tbe Court but az tho complainant
and defendants are citizens OF virginia tn9
Court would be without jurisdiction unless "
case involves some quesuon aIlsihS untoi it .u7
Constitution OF tbs United states. Ihal que'-
lion ia whether the acts o: tho General Assem-
Tly Of Virginia complained Of IN the bul. aud
which the defendants are ABOUT 10 ohiOI0o
against the complainant, are repughAh' 10 sec-
finn 10 Of Article l. Of tho Constitution OF the
Tpit,d STATES when the state OF virginia by
Inc act Of her Generat Assembly, approved
March 30 1871, provided for the issue OF her
honds hearing interest, coupons made IN torms
,cceivsble for taxes, she entered intO con-
fract with the holders Of them 70 receive tnom
wben presented in payment OF taxes due. Ihey
", re- made negotiable. PAYABLE - bearer. aui
ne all other negotiable paper for the payment
Of money were priied fGcte genuine.
CONSTITUTIONAL PoIST.
The Constitution Of the United States do
cIarss mat. having entered into contract, no
state shall pass any Law impairing its oDuga-
,tou The Supreme Court Of the United states
hae said ln POindexter aud GreenhoW W.
I1nIted states keports) shat the Legislation oi
Virginia in relation 70 its deDt uR " tlas
t,1ue must be considered as whole. Inc acsoi
Assembly In question must be taken tose'noi,
as one a but an amendment " The othor. Ihe
ss.hcme of the whole Is indiyislbe and cannot
ne separated into parts; aud II farthor 20
cIared that the whole Legislation, 10 al W
nsrts as % the creditors affected Dy ~ an, enu
30 consenting 70 IL, must be pronouhceu nun
"a void Since the rendering OF THIS luus-
.asot me state OF Virginia. - IL appesIsliror
,e l,iil fn this case. has added throo iu
a,nandnepts ~ 10 It's coupon Legislation py u,o
a., ~ NAV H. 1851, the treasurer OF oeen .iy'
n.,,,ay md town Ia the State IL ordered 70 lue
5e. ,ha states Attorney with list OF All pel.
niss. l1ns Who have rendered coupons IN pay.
.,sot ~ their taxes, aud tho attorneys o..
,'aos,ired 20 bring suit 10 recover .ns s"1a s.sn
tssfsaxas for which coupons hhfo 49,
VI t"e'- ~ A. aaf NJ January ~. 1850. ~ ~ /